Pages

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Faith in science

Some
Christians feel intimidated by science, while many more Christians are told
that they ought to feel intimidated by science. We’re told that Christianity is
unscientific. That we should either abandon the faith wholesale or at least
perform radical surgery.

In light of that, here’s something I found revealing. You
might suppose that physics majors are the cream of the crop. The brainiacs. Not only would you
expect them to be in the top percentile of the student body generally, but
among the best and brightest science majors. We associate physicists with
brainpower. Daunting I.Q.

So it’s striking to see the vast intellectual gap between
these physics majors and a distinguished physicist:

And although Don Page may be near the top of his field, I
don’t think he’s quite up there with Roger Penrose or Edward Witten. So the gap
would be even wider in their case.

It makes you wonder how much even the average science major
actually understands about his chosen field. How deep his understanding goes.
How much he’s qualified to evaluate. How much he’s taking on faith. How little
he can prove on his own. How many science majors must simply take the word of a
few geniuses at the very top of the pyramid.

Now you might say that’s unfair. These aren’t graduates,
much less post-doc students at Harvard, Princeton, Caltech, MIT, or Cambridge.
But, of course, that’s a winnowing process. An elite few. So it reinforces my
point. What minuscule fraction of the population knows the intricacies of
science well enough to even assess scientific claims against the Bible? How
much is just bravado?

3 comments:

I have had discussions online with people who claimed to be (or have been) scientific researchers, but who lacked any understanding of the philosophical presuppositions for the scientific method and how it epistemically limits the certainty of scientific proof to a demonstration of likelihood given the assumptions of the experiment.

Years ago when I was a physics student, I observed my fellow classmates and how they would buzz through lab work only to get enough results to accomplish the bare minimum for the paperwork. I was usually the last one to leave the lab. Consequently, I was the first one the professor asked to join his graduate lab. You either leave the lab thinking about the next frat party (or other such thing of equal importance) or leave it thinking like a physicist.

The same could be said of Bible Study. You either leave the pages of scripture thinking about how it lends itself to your own self-justification, or you leave it thinking about how only God could justify.

The difference for both physics studies and Bible studies is the difference between east and west.

It makes you wonder how much even the average science major actually understands about his chosen field.

This is a problem endemic to the modern university and so applies to many majors. It would be helpful to see what in-major GPA such individuals earned, but even then that would be a weak indicator of understanding given the quality of education in the US and grade inflation.

Like you said, true mastery is rare. Instant expert syndrome tends to be a product of American culture, all the more so when someone receives an undergraduate "education." (Sadly, it affects both Christians and non-Christians.)

"It makes you wonder how much even the average science major actually understands about his chosen field. How deep his understanding goes. How much he’s qualified to evaluate. How much he’s taking on faith. How little he can prove on his own. How many science majors must simply take the word of a few geniuses at the very top of the pyramid...What minuscule fraction of the population knows the intricacies of science well enough to even assess scientific claims against the Bible? How much is just bravado?"

If I recall, Feynman's now famous lectures on physics were meant as an intro to physics for smart physics undergrads at Caltech. The best and the brightest. However, as the course progressed lots of these undergrads apparently dropped out because the material was too difficult for them, whereas more senior students including grad students as well as professors joined in.

Many of those who stuck with Feynman's lectures later said Feynman's lectures were a novel take on the fundamentals. Looking at basic physics from angles they hadn't previously considered. Feynman's survey of elementary physics yielded fascinating new insights for them too. Perhaps Eliot's quote from his Four Quartets would've been apt to capture something of what they felt: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

If this is accurate, then how much did these physics students let alone profs at a top science university (at the time and today) even understand about the heart of physics in the first place?

At the same time, are physical phenomena inherently incapable of being fully understood by the human mind? Will various core aspects of physical phenomena always remain to some significant degree impenetrable? Are we ultimately unable to plumb its depths? As Feynman himself wrote: "What I cannot create, I do not understand."

Either way I think it bolsters Steve's point.

"And although Don Page may be near the top of his field, I don’t think he’s quite up there with Roger Penrose or Edward Witten."

Just a random piece of trivia: I believe Witten was originally a history major who later went into physics.

"You might suppose that physics majors are the cream of the crop. The brainiacs. Not only would you expect them to be in the top percentile of the student body generally, but among the best and brightest science majors. We associate physicists with brainpower. Daunting I.Q."